But as we prepare to observe the centennial of that document, it’s important to understand that although his lawsuit was a stunt, Abbas was serious. More than that, the symbolism of his protest tells us more about what is preventing peace between Israel and the Palestinians than any of the usual explanations about settlements, borders, the status of Jerusalem or criticisms of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Ten decades after British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour publicly expressed his government’s “sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations” and its support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” the Palestinian Arabs are still unreconciled to the fact that this goal was realized with the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.

Related coverage

Discrimination is wrong. That’s why states, including Kentucky, are enforcing measures aimed at pushing back against the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment,...

To Abbas and his Fatah party — as well as their Hamas rivals, Balfour is the original sin of the Middle East that explains all the suffering of their people in the last century. More than that, Balfour is, as Jager — a former Jerusalem Post editor and author — writes, the key to understanding why negotiations between Israel and the PA have remained stalemated in the more than two decades since the Oslo Accords.

“The 1993 Oslo Accords notwithstanding, the PLO covenant — with its denunciation of the Balfour Declaration — has never been legally amended, and for good reason. The problem Palestinian Arabs have with Israel is its existence — not ‘settlements,’ ‘occupied’ territory or the security barrier,” writes Jager.

“Abbas has consistently made the point that the Palestinians won’t recognize or accept Israel as a Jewish state. That would acknowledge the legitimacy of a Jewish national home and doing so would basically end the conflict.”

This means the conflict remains, as Jager notes, an “all or nothing (zero sum) clash.”

Jager’s book provides an easy-to-understand guide for general readers. The British decision was based, in part, on genuine sympathy for the aspirations of a homeless people whose ties to the land was part of the bible that the English loved — as well as Zionist diplomacy. But Balfour was also the product of a mistaken belief — fueled by antisemitic myths — that the Jews had the power to aid the Allied war effort at a moment when the outcome of World War I was in doubt.

In truth, the Jews had no such power. It was Balfour that allowed them back onto the stage of world history and, following the Allied victory that brought Palestine under British control, gave Jews the opportunity to begin building a state in their ancient homeland — and to rectify the injustices of the past two millennia.

Yet it is not so much the events of 1917 — as the events that followed — that we need to understand.

Subsequent British governments not only whittled down the size of the Jewish home, but also betrayed their promise by limiting the rights of the Jews there in order to appease the Arab and Muslim world. That led to a series of proposals for further dividing the land, but the Arabs refused every such offer, including the United Nations partition plan of 1947 that called for the creation of both a Jewish and an Arab state.

Sharing even part of the country was unthinkable. To the Arabs, the return of the Jews was an injustice — because it would mean that even a tiny sliver of the region they considered Muslim might be under the sovereignty of a dhimmi — a despised minority. That same spirit is why the Palestinians are still unreconciled to the consequences of Balfour’s promise. As Jager writes, “continued Arab rejection of the Balfour Declaration one hundred years on makes any compromise leading to a genuine conflict resolution impossible.”

Just as many Palestinians remain in denial about the impossibility of their dream of eventually eradicating Israel, it is just as important that they come to terms with the Jews’ 1917 diplomatic triumph and understand why the Jews also have a right to be there. Until that happens, they will remain doomed to live in a limbo in which they can neither reverse the verdict of history, nor find a way to live in peace alongside those who benefited from Balfour’s historic promise.

Jonathan S. Tobin is opinion editor of JNS.org and a contributing writer for National Review. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.